Bench test · AI Search
OpenAI o1 vs Qwen
Same rack, same rubric, four independent agents. Here's how they measure up — and which we'd pick.
| OpenAI o1 | Qwen | |
|---|---|---|
| consensus | score7.8/10 | score7.7/10 |
| agents won | 3 / 4 ▲ | 1 / 4 |
| from | Custom | Custom |
| free tier | no | no |
| category | AI Search | AI Search |
Agent panel — head to head
| Anthropic | 9.2 ▲ | 7.2 |
| OpenAI | 8.5 ▲ | 7.5 |
| Gemini | 8.9 ▲ | 8.5 |
| Grok | 4.5 | 7.5 ▲ |
OpenAI o1
- ✓Excellent at complex reasoning and analysis
- ✓Provides transparent problem-solving process
- —Slower response time due to extended thinking
- —Higher computational cost than standard models
Extended thinking capability for complex reasoningMulti-step problem decompositionHigh accuracy on STEM and logic problemsDetailed step-by-step explanationsSuperior performance on benchmarks
Qwen
- ✓Free access to search-enhanced conversations
- ✓Strong multilingual capabilities
- ✓Current information through live search
- —Limited availability outside Asia
- —Smaller user base compared to ChatGPT/Claude
- —Less established track record
Conversational chat interfaceReal-time web search integrationMultilingual supportContext-aware responsesInformation synthesis from multiple sourcesExtended knowledge cutoff
Custom · no free tier
Try OpenAI o1 ▸Custom · no free tier
Try Qwen ▸Verdict
OpenAI o1 takes it — 7.8 to 7.7 (a photo finish).
The panel gave OpenAI o1 the edge on 3 of 4 agents. It's close enough that Qwen is a fair pick if it fits your workflow better.